I felt the most interesting thing about Neupert’s The 400 Blows article was not the content but the structure of the article. Neupert alternates describing

parallels between the movie and the authors life

historic background behind the making of the movie

production techniques

analysis of the movie’s narrative

and probably one or two other things that I haven’t pinpointed

I am not sure that Neupert’s method of the weaving these things together is affective. It feels a little too all-over-the-place for me. But, perhaps I write that way myself — I don’t know. I do like writing that is wildly structured — Kerouac, Burroughs and others. But, it their cases it is semi-fictional writing — and the feel of the piece or how the piece means is integral to what the piece means. This article is not that kind of writing. The is intended to be criticism or analysis and the structure here bothers me.